p.9 #2 · Brief Comments on the 200-600 with A7R4 (Harlequin Duck)
If you are having focus issues with it on the a9 you are either doing something very wrong or something is broken. Other than the universal close focus issue mentioned the A9 and 200-600 perform incredibly well for most people.
Basenji wrote:
Having the same issues with my 200-600 on my A9. At the point where I feel like the lens is just a dud.
p.9 #5 · Brief Comments on the 200-600 with A7R4 (Harlequin Duck)
I apologize in advance if this was covered, I didn't find it if that's the case (in this thread), but I'm going to get either the 100-400 or 200-600 as a general walkabout bird/wildlife lens (not always in bright sunshine) first and upgrade from my A7rii later (it's an economy thing), and I was wondering if the 200-600 will have special issues with that camera too? Issues in general sure since it isn't precisely a sports camera but other than slow write speed and not the fastest AF would the A7rii likely exhibit the same AF misses at longer ranges do you think?
p.9 #6 · Brief Comments on the 200-600 with A7R4 (Harlequin Duck)
A7Rii is a fine camera, but not a great choice for tracking fast moving subjects. That said, you can go to Flickr and search for"A7Rii 100-400mm" and you can get some idea what others have done with this combination.
p.9 #7 · Brief Comments on the 200-600 with A7R4 (Harlequin Duck)
kaldur wrote:
I apologize in advance if this was covered, I didn't find it if that's the case (in this thread), but I'm going to get either the 100-400 or 200-600 as a general walkabout bird/wildlife lens (not always in bright sunshine) first and upgrade from my A7rii later (it's an economy thing), and I was wondering if the 200-600 will have special issues with that camera too? Issues in general sure since it isn't precisely a sports camera but other than slow write speed and not the fastest AF would the A7rii likely exhibit the same AF misses at longer ranges do you think?...Show more →
It will be way, way worse with the R2. I upgraded from the R2 to the R4 for its faster AF on flying birds and I'm finding myself deleting pretty much every flying bird I've ever taken with the R2. While I really liked the R2 for more static targets, it just can't keep up with the speed of flying birds.
In comparison I'm fairly happy with the R4 for BIF. It occasionally refuses to refocus for unknown reasons, but usually it's the person behind the camera at fault when it misses. And when it hits, it tends to impress:-)
p.9 #8 · Brief Comments on the 200-600 with A7R4 (Harlequin Duck)
bwcolor wrote:
A7Rii is a fine camera, but not a great choice for tracking fast moving subjects. That said, you can go to Flickr and search for"A7Rii 100-400mm" and you can get some idea what others have done with this combination.
---------------------------------------------
Daran wrote:
It will be way, way worse with the R2. I upgraded from the R2 to the R4 for its faster AF on flying birds and I'm finding myself deleting pretty much every flying bird I've ever taken with the R2. While I really liked the R2 for more static targets, it just can't keep up with the speed of flying birds.
In comparison I'm fairly happy with the R4 for BIF. It occasionally refuses to refocus for unknown reasons, but usually it's the person behind the camera at fault when it misses. And when it hits, it tends to impress:-)
Thanks for the feedback. I'd probably try bif once or twice but mostly it'd be birds sitting on branches or waders. Depending on economics I might get an a7iii or one of the faster focusing aps-c cameras along the line.
The suggested Flickr search yielded some very pretty shots..and most glowing 200-600 reviews mention the A9..I think I have my answer.
p.9 #9 · Brief Comments on the 200-600 with A7R4 (Harlequin Duck)
waterden wrote:
The lens, of course! It should be able to focus properly on all modern Sony A bodies, not just the A9 series. The A7Riv is fine with every other lens.
Not true I'm afraid, this is a body issue, made more obvious by the extreme resolution of the 7R4 sensor My own testing has covered the 200-600 and my own 'known to be perfect' Canon prime & zoom lenses via the MC11 adapter. Focus is also patchy on the Sony 24-105 if you look very closely (back focus).
p.9 #10 · Brief Comments on the 200-600 with A7R4 (Harlequin Duck)
nw-b wrote:
Not true I'm afraid, this is a body issue, made more obvious by the extreme resolution of the 7R4 sensor My own testing has covered the 200-600 and my own 'known to be perfect' Canon prime & zoom lenses via the MC11 adapter. Focus is also patchy on the Sony 24-105 if you look very closely (back focus).
And yet the RIV can focus the 600GM even with TCs without issue. It has absolutely nothing to do with the resolution of the sensor. If I can handhold my 600GM with 2xTC at 1/100s and get consistently sharp shots time and time again yet have trouble getting consistently sharp shots handholding the much lighter 200-600/1.4TC at only 840mm and with more DOF (f/9 wide open) covering focus shifts then there is no way the body is the only problem.
p.9 #11 · Brief Comments on the 200-600 with A7R4 (Harlequin Duck)
arbitrage wrote:
And yet the RIV can focus the 600GM even with TCs without issue. It has absolutely nothing to do with the resolution of the sensor. If I can handhold my 600GM with 2xTC at 1/100s and get consistently sharp shots time and time again yet have trouble getting consistently sharp shots handholding the much lighter 200-600/1.4TC at only 840mm and with more DOF (f/9 wide open) covering focus shifts then there is no way the body is the only problem.
Agreed. It is not just the body, it is not just the lens. In fact 25% of the time the combo works fine.
p.9 #12 · Brief Comments on the 200-600 with A7R4 (Harlequin Duck)
arbitrage wrote:
And yet the RIV can focus the 600GM even with TCs without issue. It has absolutely nothing to do with the resolution of the sensor. If I can handhold my 600GM with 2xTC at 1/100s and get consistently sharp shots time and time again yet have trouble getting consistently sharp shots handholding the much lighter 200-600/1.4TC at only 840mm and with more DOF (f/9 wide open) covering focus shifts then there is no way the body is the only problem.
I'll not argue, but think of it this way. Your 600mm lens retails at US $15k, it is built by hand. The 200-600 is roughly 10% of that. The teleconverters are designed for specifically for the 'Ultra' lenses, the 600 f/4 and 400 f/2.8 premium lenses. The fact they work with cheap zooms is almost a convenience to 'poor' users. Much of the RD time designing these cameras is devoted to make sure that those lenses, the 'flagship' products work perfectly on the bodies. Far less development time is devoted to the cheap consumer lenses. What we are seeing here is products that have not fully been developed in the hope that consumers do not notice, because it saves money for Sony.....Is it an accident that there are less issues with the G Master badged lenses like the 100-400 than there are with the 200-600 which does not have the badge? Of course not, they are the second tier of 'flagship' products. The 200-600 is just an 'ordinary' lens.
Until recently I had a Sony movie camera, a CineAlta series, in other words, premium. Its specs told me that it performed a wide range of functions. Anyone would assume that it could combine those functions to make a nice movie clip. But it didn't. There was not sufficient processing power, it was too expensive to add more power. I was told so by the product designer.
This is the key difference between Sony and others like Nikon / Canon / Panasonic - those companies make products that work and meet the published specifications. Sony push boundaries, but also cut corners in pursuit of profit
p.9 #13 · Brief Comments on the 200-600 with A7R4 (Harlequin Duck)
Lightweight long lenses often have problems with shake, this is due to Newton's second law: F = m a, so when mass is low, a given force F leads to high acceleration, and when mass is high, the acceleration from that same force applied to the lens leads to lower acceleration.
High-resolution cameras have to read more data from the sensor to perform operations (including CDAF) and the read time is usually substantially longer than with lower-resolution cameras, this means the AF data is updated less frequently and the processor is also more occupied in trying to complete tasks related to focus as well as processing and storing the image data during continuous shooting. Thus sensor resolution does relate to AF performance.
Finally, a third factor is that more expensive products are often intentionally made to perform better (A9 II > A7 R IV, 600/4 > 200-600, and so on). Better motors, better electronics. The customer who pays a larger sum of money for a product also expects higher performance.
Although smaller-aperture lenses often are more practical for some applications than larger-aperture lenses, the former still don't get as much attention from the designers because they try to ensure that the more expensive product is better in every way except weight. Sometimes the smaller-aperture lenses do have extra benefits such as shorter minimum focus distance.
p.9 #14 · Brief Comments on the 200-600 with A7R4 (Harlequin Duck)
A few thoughts ...
The high resolution of the IV will more readily pick up soft focus, heat haze, subject and camera movement and lens weaknesses (like decentredness).
Now re soft focus, the IV, the III and the 9 I understand use phase detect AF to get in the ballpark and then contrast detect AF to get an accurate final lock. (Sony came out and said this re the R II; haven't seen anything more recently but it makes sense.)
That last phase with CD takes time (because it's trial and error) and works best with good light and a contrasty subject - which we don't always have (esp not at f6.5 or f8; I believe the AF occurs with a stopped-down diaphragm).
Now the R III and A9 and I assume the IV as well give you the option of going for release or focus priority. They come with 'balanced' as the default. That suggests a kind of compromise and the compromise may mean some version of 'near enough' focus. CDAF in poor light or with a low-contrast subject or with both may not finish getting the best possible lock before the near enough standard is applied.
Anyway, when I set my R III with 400/2.8 + 1.4 TC to focus priority while doing 10 fps burst shots of BIF, the frame rate drops noticeably. That shows that under the default balanced option softer focus shots are accepted.
A 61 MP sensor will show up soft focus where the same level of soft focus won't be resolved by a 24 MP sensor.
It may also be an issue that Sony PDAF uses only line-type sensors. In the DSLR world with PDAF modules, cross-type sensors are more accurate than line type. It may be taking the Sony AF longer than necessary as less-than-accurate PDAF leaves more work for the slower CDAF to do.
As an empirical observation, when I culled the 3000 shots from a day's bird shooting on a pelagic cruise (half Sony A9, 100-400, 1.4 TC, the other half a D500 & Nikkor 200-500) there were more Sony shots that were soft.
p.9 #16 · Brief Comments on the 200-600 with A7R4 (Harlequin Duck)
Why would anyone compare slower G zoom lenses to primes with dual linear motors? If the specs are not enough, the price may suggest something. Even the 100400mm GM is a top tier lens, which shows. The A7RIV magnifies the semi-sharp nature of captures. There are some sharp ones, at lower percentage.
